06/17/2009 06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

NRC’s New Generic Environme

New Generic Environm

Impact Statement and Its Impa

Impact Statement and Its Imp

on In Situ Leach Facility Licen

on In Situ Leach Facility Licen

Prepared for the 2009 NMA/NRC Conference Prepared for the 2009 NMA/NRC Conference

Prepared by Thompson & Simmons, PLL

Prepared by Thompson & Simmons, PLL

Christopher S. Pugsley, Esq. (Present

Christopher S. Pugsley, Esq. (Present
06/17/2009 06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (N

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (N

Indicated the Generic Environmental Im

Indicated the Generic Environmental Im

Statement (GEIS) for In Situ Leach Faci

Statement (GEIS) for In Situ Leach Faci

Needed Due to a Number of Agency Needed Due to a Number of Agency Challenges Challenges:

 Large Number of Proposed Ap Large Number of Proposed Applications (Approx

plications (Appro

30) by 2012; 30) by 2012;

 Limited Agency Human and Financial Resources

Limited Agency Human and Financial Resources

 Need for Site Need for Site-Specific Environmental Impact Sta

Specific Environmental Impact Sta

(EISs) for New Facility Licensing Under 10 CFR P

) for New Facility Licensing Under 10 CFR P
06/17/2009 06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

 NRC Conducted an Open Scoping Process on 

NRC Conducted an Open Scoping Process on 

Proposed GEIS Proposed GEIS:

 Three Public Scoping Meetings (Casper, Wyoming, Al

Three Public Scoping Meetings (Casper, Wyoming, A

New Mexico, Gallup, New Mexico) New Mexico, Gallup, New Mexico)

 NRC Received Public Comment From Several 

NRC Received Public Comment From Several 

 Public Scoping Meetings; Public Scoping Meetings; Regulatory Agencies; Regulatory Agencies; Industry Groups; Industry Groups; Interested Stakeholders Interested Stakeholders
06/17/2009 06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

 In July of 2008, NRC Issued Its Draft Generic In July of 2008, NRC Issued Its Draft Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for In Situ Le

Environmental Impact Statement for In Situ Le

Facilities (NUREG Facilities (NUREG-1910) for Public Comment; 1910) for Public Comment;

 Comments Were Submitted to NRC From a Nu

Comments Were Submitted to NRC From a Nu

Interested Stakeholders Interested Stakeholders:

 Eight (8) Public Comment Meetings; Eight (8) Public Comment Meetings; Federal Agencies; Federal Agencies; States and State Agencies; States and State Agencies; Industry Members and Groups; Industry Members and Groups; Members of the Public Members of the Public
06/17/2009 06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

 Availability of NUREG Availability of NUREG-1910 Now Provid

1910 Now Provid

Staff With Regulatory Pathway to Staff With Regulatory Pathway to “Tier” Specific Environmental Reviews Off NU

Specific Environmental Reviews Off NU

1910 Analyses and Conclusions 1910 Analyses and Conclusions:

 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and C

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and C

Environmental Quality (C Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations Allow EQ) Regulations Allow 

 Provides Additional Efficien Provides Additional Efficiencies in the New Faci

cies in the New Faci

Licensing Process; Licensing Process;

 Provides License Applicants and Licensees With 

Provides License Applicants and Licensees With 

on Preparing Environmental Reports (ERs): on Preparing Environmental Reports (ERs):

– License Applicants and Licensees Should Refere

License Applicants and Licensees Should Refere

1910 Where Appropriate to Facilitate Timely Revie

1910 Where Appropriate to Facilitate Timely Revie
06/17/2009 06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

 On June 4, 2009, NRC Issued Its Final V

On June 4, 2009, NRC Issued Its Final V

of NUREG of NUREG-1910 Including 1910 Including:

 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action; Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action; ISL Uranium Recovery and Alternatives; ISL Uranium Recovery and Alternatives; Description of Affected Environment (Four Regio

Description of Affected Environment (Four Regio

 Potential Environmental Impacts; Potential Environmental Impacts; Cumulative Effects; Cumulative Effects; Environmental Justice; Environmental Justice;

 Mitigation Measures; Mitigation Measures; Environmental Monitoring; Environmental Monitoring; Consultations and Summary Consultations and Summary
06/17/2009 06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

 The Final NUREG The Final NUREG-1910 Included 1910 Included 

Additional Information in its Appen

Additional Information in its Appen

 Scoping Summary Report; Scoping Summary Report; Potentially Applicable Statutes and Regulat

Potentially Applicable Statutes and Regulat

 Conventional Uranium Milling Technologies

Conventional Uranium Milling Technologies

 Cultural and Historical Resource Managem

Cultural and Historical Resource Managem

 Hazardous Chemicals; Hazardous Chemicals; Cumulative Effect Review; Cumulative Effect Review; Response to Public Comments Response to Public Comments
06/17/2009 06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

NUREG-1910: RESPONSE 

1910: RESPONSE 

COMMENTS COMMENTS

 A Number of Important Regulatory/Policy A Number of Important Regulatory/Policy Considerations Are Found in The Response to Considerations Are Found in The Response to Comments Comments:

 ISL Site Development is ISL Site Development is “Phased & Iterative Phased & Iterative”;

 Regional Analysis Can Be Applied to Other Geograph

Regional Analysis Can Be Applied to Other Geograph

Locations; Locations;

 Clarification of Regulatory Requirements; Clarification of Regulatory Requirements;

– Wellfield Wellfield Collection Data For License Applications v. Po

Collection Data For License Applications v. Po

Issuance; Issuance;

– Excursion Detection Requirements Excursion Detection Requirements

 Conformance of GEIS Terms to the GEIS Glossary; Conformance of GEIS Terms to the GEIS Glossary; Recognition of Aquifer Exemptions, Restoration Requ

Recognition of Aquifer Exemptions, Restoration Requ

and Associated Safeguards as Effective Means to Pro

and Associated Safeguards as Effective Means to Pro

Adjacent, Non Adjacent, Non-Exempt Aquifers Exempt Aquifers
06/17/2009 06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

NUREG-1910: RESPONSE 

1910: RESPONSE 

COMMENTS COMMENTS

 Several Critical Points Made by NM

Several Critical Points Made by NM

Were Not Added or Revised by NR

Were Not Added or Revised by NR

 Greater Description of Performance Greater Description of Performance-Based 

Based 

and License Conditions; and License Conditions;

 Acknowledgment That 10 CFR Part 40, App

Acknowledgment That 10 CFR Part 40, Ap

Criterion 5B Does Not Apply to ISL as a Ma

Criterion 5B Does Not Apply to ISL as a Ma

Law;

 Re-Evaluation of Evaluation of “Toll Milling Toll Milling” of Ion-Excha

Excha

Resins, Including Those From Water (Mine

Resins, Including Those From Water (Mine

Other) Treatment Operations Other) Treatment Operations
06/17/2009 06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

NUREG-1910 DIRECT & INDI

1910 DIRECT & INDI

IMPACTS IMPACTS

 The Final NUREG The Final NUREG-1910’s Analyses 

s Analyses 

Conclusions Have Direct and Indi

Conclusions Have Direct and Indi

Impacts on Other Licensing Proce

Impacts on Other Licensing Proce

 New Facility Licensing; New Facility Licensing; License Amendments & Renewals; License Amendments & Renewals; Satellite ISL Facilities; Satellite ISL Facilities; Specific Exemptions for Pre Specific Exemptions for Pre-Licensing Site Licensing Site 

Construction Construction
06/17/2009 06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

NUREG-1910: NEW FACIL

1910: NEW FACIL

LICENSING LICENSING

 The Final NUREG The Final NUREG-1910 Has Direct 1910 Has Direct 

Impacts on New Facility Licensing Impacts on New Facility Licensing

 Generic/Programmatic Review of Newly Pr

Generic/Programmatic Review of Newly Pr

Facilities; Facilities;

 Site-Specific Environmental Reviews Specific Environmental Reviews
06/17/2009 06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

NUREG-1910: NEW FACIL

1910: NEW FACIL

LICENSING LICENSING

 NUREG-1910 Continues to Offer a 1910 Continues to Offer a 

Generic/Programmatic Approach to ISL 

Generic/Programmatic Approach to ISL 

Licensing Licensing:

 CEQ & NRC Regulations Continue to Endorse CEQ & NRC Regulations Continue to Endorse “T

T

 NRC Staff Continue to Espouse the Use of NRC Staff Continue to Espouse the Use of “Tieri

Tier

 Generic Regional Analyses Still Considered to B

Generic Regional Analyses Still Considered to B

of Efficiencies in License Review Process of Efficiencies in License Review Process:

 Mitigate Need for Mitigate Need for “Full Blown Full Blown” EISs for Each 

for Each 
06/17/2009 06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

NUREG-1910: NEW FACIL

1910: NEW FACIL

LICENSING LICENSING

 However, NRC Staff Has Altered the Or

However, NRC Staff Has Altered the Or

Approach to Environmental Reviews Approach to Environmental Reviews:

 The Original Approach Was to Prepare NUREG The Original Approach Was to Prepare NUREG-1

1

Then “Tier” Site-Specific Environmental Assess

Specific Environmental Assess

(EAs) for Each New Proposed Site; ) for Each New Proposed Site;

 NOW, the New Approach is to NOW, the New Approach is to “Tier” Site-Specifi

Specif

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements 

Each New Proposed Site; Each New Proposed Site;

 Change Made to Change Made to:

– Address Public, NGO Concerns; Address Public, NGO Concerns;– Provide Strong Legal/NEPA Basis for Environmen

Provide Strong Legal/NEPA Basis for Environmen
06/17/2009 06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

NUREG-1910: NEW FACIL

1910: NEW FACIL

LICENSING LICENSING

 As a License Applicant, What Does 

As a License Applicant, What Does 

Mean for Me? Mean for Me?:

 License Review Process Will Require Ad

License Review Process Will Require Ad

Time:

– 10 CFR Part 51:_Requires That the Following 

10 CFR Part 51:_Requires That the Following 

Conducted for an SEIS Conducted for an SEIS:

 Notice of Intent to Prepare the SEIS (Man

Notice of Intent to Prepare the SEIS (Man

 Scoping (Discretionary) (NRC Has Determ

Scoping (Discretionary) (NRC Has Determ

NUREG-1910 Negates the Need for Detai

1910 Negates the Need for Detai

Scoping Due to Its Elo Scoping Due to Its Elongated Scoping Pr

ngated Scoping P

(Targeted Scoping) (Targeted Scoping)
06/17/2009 06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

NUREG-1910: NEW FACIL

1910: NEW FACIL

LICENSING LICENSING

 As a License Applicant, What Does 

As a License Applicant, What Does 

Mean for Me? Mean for Me?:

– License Review Likely Will Require License Review Likely Will Require 

Additional Financial Resources (Typi

Additional Financial Resources (Typ

SEIS is More Expensive Than an EA)

SEIS is More Expensive Than an EA)

– License Review May or May Not Be License Review May or May Not Be 

Conducted Within the Proposed Two Conducted Within the Proposed Two

Timeframe Timeframe
06/17/2009 06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

NUREG-1910: LICENSE 1910: LICENSE 

AMENDMENTS AND RENEW

AMENDMENTS AND RENEW

 Currently, the Availability of NURE

Currently, the Availability of NURE

Allows NRC Staff to Allows NRC Staff to “Tier” Site-Sp

Sp

Environmental Reviews for Licens

Environmental Reviews for Licens

Amendments and Renewals, But Amendments and Renewals, But Questions Remain Questions Remain:

 Which Form Will the Site Which Form Will the Site-Specific Review 

Specific Review 

– EA?;– SEIS?;– EIS?
06/17/2009 06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

NUREG-1910: LICENSE 1910: LICENSE 

AMENDMENTS AND RENEW

AMENDMENTS AND RENEW

 Why Should License Amendments or Renewa

Why Should License Amendments or Renewa

to an EA?: to an EA?:

 Prior NRC Practice Was to Start With an EA and Deter

Prior NRC Practice Was to Start With an EA and Deter

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) Was Approp

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) Was Approp

(NUREG-1748);

 10 CFR Part 51 Does Not Require an EIS for a License 

10 CFR Part 51 Does Not Require an EIS for a License 

or Renewal or Renewal: 

– (“(b) The following types of actions (b) The following types of actions require an environm

 require an environm

statement or a supplement to an environmental impact 

statement or a supplement to an environmental impact 

Issuance of a license to possess a Issuance of a license to possess and use source mater

nd use source mater

milling or production of uranium milling or production of uranium hexafluoride pursuant 

hexafluoride pursuant 

this chapter. this chapter.”);

 Amendment or Renewal Applicati Amendment or Renewal Applications Typically Do No

ons Typically Do No

Nearly as Much Site Nearly as Much Site-Specific Analysis as a New Facili

Specific Analysis as a New Facili
06/17/2009 06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

NUREG-1910: SATELLITE 

1910: SATELLITE 

FACILITIES FACILITIES

 NRC Also Has Raised Potential Sh

NRC Also Has Raised Potential Sh

Licensing Policy for Satellite ISL Licensing Policy for Satellite ISL Wellfields Wellfields/Facilities; /Facilities;

 Policy Question Policy Question: Do Satellite Do Satellite Wellf

Wellf

Require a New License or a Licens

Require a New License or a Licens

Amendment to an Existing License

Amendment to an Existing License
06/17/2009 06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

NUREG-1910: SATELLITE 

1910: SATELLITE 

FACILITIES FACILITIES

 While NRC Has Not Rendered a Policy Decisio

While NRC Has Not Rendered a Policy Decisio

Parameters for Whether a License or License Parameters for Whether a License or License Amendment is Required, That Decision Has Im

Amendment is Required, That Decision Has Im

Implications for Environmental Reviews Implications for Environmental Reviews:

 New Licenses Licenses Trigger the 10 CFR Part 51 Requiremen

Trigger the 10 CFR Part 51 Requiremen

Unclear Based on New Facility License Requirement f

Unclear Based on New Facility License Requirement f

Whether Satellites Will Require an SEIS; Whether Satellites Will Require an SEIS;

 Satellite ISL Satellite ISL Wellfields Wellfields Typically Do Not Involve a Sign

Typically Do Not Involve a Sign

Amount of Site Amount of Site-Specific Analyses Specific Analyses:

– No Central Processing Plant; No Central Processing Plant;– Few, if Any, Administrative/Process Structures; Few, if Any, Administrative/Process Structures;

– Minor Need for Radiological Dose Assessments Due to 

Minor Need for Radiological Dose Assessments Due to 

Facilities Facilities
06/17/2009 06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

NUREG-1910: SATELLITE 

1910: SATELLITE 

FACILITIES FACILITIES

 Question: Why Should Satellite ISL Question: Why Should Satellite ISL We

We

or Facilities Default to an EA? or Facilities Default to an EA?:

 Answer: Use NUREG Answer: Use NUREG-1910 Analyses an

1910 Analyses an

Conclusions to Default to an EA: Conclusions to Default to an EA:

 If a New License is Implicated, NUREG If a New License is Implicated, NUREG-1910 Sho

1910 Sho

Mitigate Need for an SEIS and Conform to Mitigate Need for an SEIS and Conform to NRC’s 

Environmental Review Approach of a Environmental Review Approach of a “Tiered” E

 If a License Amendment is Implicated, No Part 5

If a License Amendment is Implicated, No Part 5

Requirement for an EIS and, Thus, an EA with N

Requirement for an EIS and, Thus, an EA with N

Should Be More Than Sufficient Should Be More Than Sufficient
06/17/2009 06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS

 The NUREG The NUREG-1910 Development Process Has R

1910 Development Process Has R

in Significant Changes to the License Applica

in Significant Changes to the License Applica

Review Process Review Process:

 Started with Proposed Started with Proposed “Tiered” Environmental Asses

Environmental Asses

 Now, Final Review Process Implicates Now, Final Review Process Implicates SEISs Adding T

Adding T

Cost to the License Review Process Cost to the License Review Process

 New Review Processes Implic New Review Processes Implicate Potential Us

ate Potential Us

Site Construction Approaches; Site Construction Approaches;

 Next 12 Next 12-18 Months Will Result in Important Re 18 Months Will Result in Important Re

of the Uranium Recovery Industry of the Uranium Recovery Industry
EPA Update:

NESHAP Uranium Activities

Reid J. RosnickEnvironmental Protection Agency Radiation Protection Division (6608J)Washington, DC 20460

NMA/NRC Uranium Recovery Workshop July 2, 2009
Overview

General requirements applicable to Subpa

and Subpart W

EPA regulatory requirements for undergro

uranium mining operations (Subpart B)

EPA regulatory requirements for operating 

uranium mill tailings (Subpart W)

Status update on Subpart W activitiesSome Conclusions
General Requirements Applicable to Subp

and Subpart W

• Subpart B and W facilities are subject to the 

requirements of 40 CFR 61.01 - .19

• Approval to operate• Application for construction and modification• Notification of startup• Compliance with monitoring/maintenance requirem

• Subpart W facilities are subject to the design 

ground-water requirements of 40 CFR 192.3
EPA Regulatory Requirements f

Underground Uranium Mining 

Operations (Subpart B)
EPA Regulatory Requirements for 

Underground Uranium Mining (Clean Air 

• 40 CFR 61.20, Subpart B regulations limiting rad

emissions from underground uranium mines inclu

• Applies to 10,000 tons/yr ore production, or 1

tons/mine lifetime

• Ambient air radon standard not to exceed 10 

to any member of the public-compliance detewith COMPLY-R, or equivalent, approved cod

• Annual reporting requirements – by 3/31 each 

emissions calculations for the year, monthly if compliance

• Record keeping requirements: Five years
EPA Regulatory Requirements f

Operating Uranium Mill Tailing

(Subpart W)
EPA Regulatory Requirements for 

Operating Uranium Mill Tailings (Clean Air A

• 40 CFR 61 Subpart W requirements apply to faci

licensed to manage uranium byproduct materials 12/15/89) during and following the processing of ores

• Preconstruction approval, 40 CFR 61.07• Impoundment construction and operation requ

in 40 CFR 192 cross referenced in Subpart W 

• Limit on number/size of impoundments

• Phased Disposal – lined impoundments no 

than 40 acres, no more than two in operatany time

• Continuous Disposal – tailings are dewate

immediately disposed, no more than 10 acuncovered at any time
EPA Regulatory Requirements for 

Uranium Operations (Clean Air Act)

Subpart W Requirements (continued)

• Radon emission standard of 20 pCi/m

2/sec --

annual reporting requirements, notification in advance of testing

• The radon emission standard is for existing s

only (existing before 12/15/89)

• All operators must comply with 40 CFR 192.3

See http://www.epa.gov/radiation/neshaps/subpartw/index

more information
Status Update on Subpart W Activ
Status of Subpart W Review Activit

• Per Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, EPA 

obligated to review, and possibly revise Subp

• A workgroup has been established

• Members from across the Agency• Represent ORIA, OGC, ORD, OSWER, O

OPEI, OW, Regions 6, 7, 8 and 10

• Workplan, Communications Plan, Analytic 

Blueprint have been completed, basically, are we going to approach the task
Status of Subpart W Review Activit

• We are conducting historical research on the 

assessment work originally done in support o1989 standard

• We have begun a survey of existing technolo• Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assu

has sent information request letters to numeruranium recovery facilities

• Answers better inform the workgroup of the 

universe of facilities, and the types of uranium recovery processes that exist

• We have also requested that ISL facilities pro

radon flux data from their evaporation ponds 
Status of Subpart W Review Activit

• We are researching if Method 115 continues 

current, or whether other methods could be employed for monitoring and analysis of rado

• We are planning to work with all stakeholders 

reviewing/revising the standards

• The Agency continues to believe that conven

tailings piles, certain evaporation ponds from operations, and heap leach piles, are subject requirements of Subpart W

• We base our decision on a review of existing 

regulatory language
Applicability of Subpart W (Clean Air 

•40 CFR 61.250 –“The provisions of this subpart apply to owners 

operators of facilities licensed to manage uranbyproduct materials during and following the processing of uranium ores, commonly referreuranium mills and their associated tailings. Thsubpart does not apply to the disposal of tailin
Subpart W Definition of Uranium 

Byproduct Material

• 40 CFR 61.251 (g) –

“Uranium byproduct material or tailings means 

waste produced by the extraction or concentof uranium from any ore processed primarily source material content. Ore bodies depleted uranium solution extraction and which remain underground do not constitute byproduct mafor the purposes of this subpart.”
EPA Regulatory Requirements for 

Uranium Operations (Clean Air Act)

• What is an impoundment (per 40 CFR 192.32, w

cross references 40 CFR 260.10)?

• “...a facility or part of a facility which is a natu

topographic depression, man-made excavatiodiked area formed primarily of earthen materi(although it may be lined with man-made matwhich is designed to hold an accumulation of wastes, or wastes containing free liquids, and is not an injection well. Examples of impoundmare holding, storage, settling, and aeration pitponds and lagoons.”
Some Conclusions

• We are in the process of reviewing and poss

revising Subpart W

• Owners/operators of ISL facilities that utilize 

evaporation ponds containing byproduct matproduced by the extraction or concentration ouranium should assume you are subject to threquirements of Subpart W

• We appreciate the assistance of all stakehold

inform and enable us to craft a protective and enforceable rule.
Questions?
Hydrology Issues at ISR Facilitie

Hydrology Issues at ISR Faciliti

Elise A. Striz, Ph.D. Elise A. Striz, Ph.D.

Hydrogeologist Hydrogeologist

Uranium Recovery and Licensing Branch Uranium Recovery and Licensing Branch

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Ground Water Ground Water

• Hydrogeologic Characterization 

(Section 2.7)

• ISR Processes (Section 3.1)• GW Monitoring (Section 5.7.8)• GW Restoration (Section 6.1)
Hydrogeologic Characterizati

Hydrogeologic Characterizat
Issues

• Surficial aquifer characterization• Unconfined (unsaturated) aquifer characteriz• Fault characterization• Missing confining layers
Issue: Surficial Aquifer Issue: Surficial Aquifer 

Characterization Characterization

Alluvium

Aquifer 1

Aquifer 2

Discharge Point
Characterizing surficial aquifer Characterizing surficial aquifer

• Provide maps of depth to water below groun

surface to surficial aquifer

• Indicate which formations act as the surficia• Characterize water quality of each formation 

acts as the surficial aquifer

• Include any connection of surficial aquifer to 

water such as in alluvium near drainages
Why is an unconfined ore zone setting diffe

Why is an unconfined ore zone setting diffe

from confined? from confined?

Confined aquifer Confined aquifer: Water to meet pumping rate is 

: Water to meet pumping rate is 

by compression of sediments and expansion of w

by compression of sediments and expansion of w

much larger volume of aquifer is impacted. much larger volume of aquifer is impacted. Produces Produces 

“pressure cone of depression. pressure cone of depression.

”

Unconfined aquifer Unconfined aquifer: Water to meet pumping rate 

: Water to meet pumping rate 

released by dewatering so much smaller volume 

released by dewatering so much smaller volume 

is impacted. is impacted. Produces Produces 

“dewatered cone of depression. dewatered cone of depression.

”

Issue: Unconfined Aquifer Characteriza

Issue: Unconfined Aquifer Characteriza
s=drawdown (ft) Q=pumping rate (gpm) T =transmissivity (gpd/ft) 

t=time (days) r=distance of observation from pumping well (ft)

Sy r

Tt

T

Q

s 2

0.3 log 264 =

r S

Tt

T

Q

s 2

0.3 log 264 =

S= Sy= Specific Yield

Confined drawdown equation Unconfined drawdown eq

Overlying sand

Overlying Aquitard

Ore Zone

Underlying aquitard

saturated

S=coefficient of storage

T

QW u

s

114.6 ( )

=

Overlying san

Overlying Aquitar

Ore Zon

Underlying aquitar

unsaturated

saturated

Drawdown in confined vs. u

Drawdown in confined vs. u

aquifer aquifer
Example: Well Q=20 gpm, T=200 gpd/ft, t =

day, S=.0005 (confined), Sy=.05 (unconfin

0

102030405060708090

100

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Distance (ft)

Draw dow n (ft) Confined

Unconfined
Water levels in unconfined aquifer in respons

Water levels in unconfined aquifer in respons

extraction/injection extraction/injection

T

QW

u

s

114 . 6

(

)

=

Overlying 

Overlying Aqu

Ore 

Underlying aqu

Dewatering

Extraction Well Inject

Mounding
Characterizing ore zone unconfined aquife

Characterizing ore zone unconfined aquife

• Determine water levels for ore zone aquifer and ass

whether unconfined or confined

• Design pumping tests for appropriate conditions ( 

unconfined: closer observation wells, longer test tim

• Analyze results with the appropriate methods: confi

unconfined. Calculate S for confined, Sy for unconf

• Groundwater flow modeling can be very useful to pr

verify field behavior
Issue: Fault Characterization Issue: Fault Characterization

Overlying sand

Overlying Aquitard

Ore Zone

Underlying aquitard

saturated

Ove

Overlyin

Underlyi

saturated
Drawdown near a Sealing Fault Drawdown near a Sealing Fault

r

S

Tt

T

Q

r

S

Tt

T

Q

s

i r

T

2

2

0 .3 log

0 .3 264 log 264

=

+

Real Well Image 

Well

20 gpm 20 gpm

90 ft

10 ft

Observation Well

Add drawdown from combined wells at observation 

Add drawdown from combined wells at observation 
Example: Q=20 gpm, T=200 gpd/ft, t=1 day at observati

10 ft from real well and 90 ft from image well (

rr=10 ft, 

ri=

(10 ) 

0.3(200

log 200

/

264(200 )

(90 ) (.0005)

0.3(200

/ )(

1 ) log 200

/

264(20 ) 2 2 ftgpd 

gpd ft gpm ftgpd ft day gpd ft gpm

s

T

=

+

Image well drawdown Real well drawdo

0

102030405060708090

100110120

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (days)

Observation Well Water Level (feet) water level with fault water level without fault
Characterizing Faults Characterizing Faults

• Provide structural maps of faults and show 

offsets on cross sections

• If faults are present, design pumping tests 

into account fault behavior and analyze putest results with an awareness of the impafault

• Consider using groundwater flow models t

characterize and predict behavior 
Issue: Missing confining 

Issue: Missing confining 

Pumping tests will show reduced drawdown as underly

provides recharge 

Ov

OverlyUnderl

Underlying aquitard Underly
Characterization when confining layers ar

Characterization when confining layers ar

• Provide well defined isopachs of overlying a

overlying aquitard, production zone aquifer, underlying aquitard using well boring logs/c

• Be aware that pumping test analysis is affec

flow from connected aquifer (s).

• Consider using groundwater flow models to 

characterize and predict behavior in these lo
ISR Processes ISR Processes
Issues

• Unconfined aquifers• Faults• Lixiviant composition and gas lock
Why is the unconfined aquifer setting of conce

Why is the unconfined aquifer setting of conce

safety issue? safety issue?

• Extraction causes dewatering of aquifer - can limit rates• Cone of depression has limited areal extent- demonstratio

depression and communication across ore zone and with 

well ring requires more pumping wells 

• Dewatering and limited extent of cone of depression may 

difficult to capture excursions

• Low hydrostatic head can impact dissolved oxygen solub

zone and impact conductivity- “gas lock”
Injection/Extraction= Dewatering/Moundin

Injection/Extraction= Dewatering/Moundin

Dewatering can limit extraction rates Dewatering can limit extraction rates

T

QW

u

s

114 . 6

(

)

=

Overlying 

Overlying Aqu

Ore 

Underlying aqu

Dewatering

Mounding

Extraction Well Injectio
M

onitori

Extracti

T

QW u

s

114 . 6 ( )

=

Overlying s

Overlying Aqui

Ore Z

Underlying aqui

Extraction Well Monitoring Well

Dewatering limits areal extent of drawdown Dewatering limits areal extent of drawdown- impa

impa

of depression inward gradient of depression inward gradient
To demonstrate communication across wellfield 

To demonstrate communication across wellfield 

several pumping wells acting simultaneous

several pumping wells acting simultaneous

MonRing 

Pumping Wells
Excursion capture may be limited by extent of d

Excursion capture may be limited by extent of d

cone of depression and extraction rate cone of depression and extraction rate 

MR

Wellfield
Characterizing ISR operations in an unconfined 

Characterizing ISR operations in an unconfined 

• Determine limiting extraction rate to avoid dewatering (

tests)

• To demonstrate communication, design pumping tests 

consider limited extent of drawdown at each well

• Provide strategies for how to capture excursions given 

extraction rates and cones of depression

• Consider groundwater flow modeling to demonstrate u

aquifer behavior ( cone of depression, operations, rest
Issue: Sealing/Leaking Fault Issue: Sealing/Leaking Fault

Overlying sand

Overlying Aquitard

Ore Zone

Underlying aquitard

saturated

Ov

Overly

Underly

saturated
Characterizing ISR operations near a 

Characterizing ISR operations near a 

• Use pumping tests to address behavior of fa

assess impact of fault on wellfield cone of d

• Use pumping tests to assess connectivity of 

layers to ore zone to modify cone of depress

• Consider groundwater flow modeling to dem

behavior around fault ( cone of depression, operations, restoration) 
Issue: Lixiviant composition and gas l

Issue: Lixiviant composition and gas 

•Bicarbonate•Carbon Dioxide•Oxygen•Hydrogen Peroxide
Rule of thumb: 

1 ppm dissolved oxygen/ foot of headEXAMPLE: Injection Well• Fracture gradient limitation 1 psi/ft, sinjection pressure is 300 psi. •Max well head pressure is therefore (300 ft*.433 psi/ft)=170psi.•170 psi=392 feet so max O2 can be 39

well head.•If inject 392 ppm and solubility is 100 (100ft): 292 ppm will come out of soluore zone

Oxygen solubility Oxygen solubility 

300ft

100ft

O2
Hydrogen peroxide in lixiviant Hydrogen peroxide in lixiviant

Hydrogen peroxide decomposes to form free oxygen, O

2, 

presence of pyrite, Fe S

2:

FeS

H

O Fe SO

H

2

4

3

2

+

7.5

2

2

=

+

2

+

+

−

+

+

=

+

+

+

+

+

2

2

2

3 Fe

0.5

H

O Fe

H

0.5

O

Chirita, P., “ A kinetic study of hydrogen peroxide decomposition ipyrite,” Chemical and Biochemical Engr Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 3, p2007

Free Phase O
Dissolved oxygen bubbles out of lixiviant when h

head reduced (unconfined or shallow confined a

hydrogen peroxide interacts with pyrite

Sand Grain

Pore Throats

Gas Bubbles

Water
Gas 

Phase

Water Phase

This creates a reduction in conductivity, known as “Gas Lo

is dependent on saturation of the water and gas pha

As gas bubbles continue to come out of soluti

combine to block pore throats or separate the wa

into smaller channels.
From Benson et al, Lawrence Berkley National Lab, 200

Relative Permeability

Carbon Dioxide and Brine

(Analog for Free Gas and Water)

0

0.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Water Saturation (percent)

Relative Permeabiity

KrgKrw

20% gas saturation in pores reduces K

w

by 70%

Krw=K

w/Korig

How much is the conductivity reduced
Why is it a Safety Issue ? Why is it a Safety Issue ?

Gas Lock Gas Lock 

• If free gas is released at the injection well, it can reduce 

and create back pressure which can quickly damage we

detected.

• Gas produced at production well can cause simultaneo

water two phase flow that can damage piping, cause ca

pumps and affect pressure/flow measurements.

• Reductions in conductivity of ore zone can change flow 

an unpredictable manner which can influence flow contmay lead to excursions or bypassed zones.
Addressing gas lock Addressing gas lock

• Assess solubility limits of dissolved oxygen in lixiviant an

concentrations which prevent gas from being released froinjection wells or ore zone

• Avoid use of hydrogen peroxide in low hydrostatic head a

pyrites

• Watch for gas in produced water at extraction wells• Cycle wells from injection/extraction to change pressure 

• Install pressure gauges on each well to detect pressure c

wells and pipes directly
Monitoring and Excursions Monitoring and Excursions 
Issues

• Lack of confining layers• Faults
Where do you place the monitoring wells with l

Where do you place the monitoring wells with 

vertical barrier? vertical barrier?

?

Extraction Well

O

Over

Underlying aquitard

Unde

Under

MW MW

Injection Well
How do you capture an excursion? How do you capture an excursion?

Ove

Overlyin

Underlying aquitard

Underly

Underlyi

MW

MW

Extraction Well
Monitoring and excursion capture with missing 

Monitoring and excursion capture with missing 

layers

• Assess how to place monitoring wells to detect vertica

excursions in the absence of barrier ( analogous to MW horizontal excursions)

• Address how a vertical excursion to underlying aquifer 

be captured

• Include underlying aquifer as part of production zone• Consider groundwater flow modeling to demonstrate 

monitoring and capture
Issue- Faults: Sealing or Leaking Faults: Sealing or Leaking

Overlying sand

Overlying Aquitard

Ore Zone

Underlying aquitard

Overlyi

Overlying A

O

Underlying a

Underlyi

Underlying sand
Where do you place a MW and how do you ca

Where do you place a MW and how do you ca

excursion near a fault? excursion near a fault?

Overlying sand

Overlying Aquitard

Ore Zone

Underlying aquitard

saturated

Ove

OverlyinUnderly

Underlyi

saturated

MW

Excursion
Monitoring and excursion capture near 

Monitoring and excursion capture near 

• Assess how to place monitoring wells to detect 

across fault to offset overlying and underlying a

• Address how excursions across faults would be • Consider groundwater flow modeling to demons

monitoring and capture
Restoration Restoration
Issues

• Pore volume calculation using saturated thic

average completed thickness in unconfined a

• Dewatering/mounding effects on saturation a

contact of ore zone in unconfined aquifers
Issue: Pore Volume in Unconfined Aquifer Issue: Pore Volume in Unconfined Aquifer

PV= Area * PV= Area * Average Completed Thickness Average Completed Thickness * Porosity 

* Porosity 

T

QW

u

s

114 . 6

(

)

=

Overlying 

Overlying Aqu

Ore 

Underlying aqu

unsaturated

saturated

Extraction Well Injectio

Saturated Thickness

Completed Thickness
T

QW u

s

114 . 6 ( )

=

Overlying 

Overlying Aqu

Ore 

Underlying aqu

unsaturated

saturated

Extraction Well Injectio

Injection/Extraction in Unconfined Aquifer : Injection/Extraction in Unconfined Aquifer : 

Vertical flow contacts more Vertical flow contacts more than completed thickn

than completed thickn

PV= Area * PV= Area * Saturated thickness Saturated thickness * Porosity * Flar

* Porosity * Flar
Issue: Unconfined aquifer saturation/desaturation im

Issue: Unconfined aquifer saturation/desaturation im

sweep/contact of ore zone sweep/contact of ore zone with restoration fluids

with restoration fluid

T

QW

u

s

114 . 6

(

)

=

Overlying 

Overlying Aqu

Ore 

Underlying aqu

unsaturated

saturated

Extraction Well Injectio
Flip/pulse wells to ensure contact Flip/pulse wells to ensure contact of all portions of aqu

 of all portions of aqu

restoration fluids. restoration fluids.

T

QW

u

s

114 . 6

(

)

=

Overlying 

Overlying Aqu

Ore 

Underlying aqu

unsaturated

saturated

Extrac

Injection Well
Conclusion Conclusion - Issues

• Surficial Aquifers• Unconfined Aquifers• Faults• Missing Confining Layers
All four issues at on

All four issues at on

Overlying sand

Overlying Aquitard

Ore Zone

Underlying aquitard

Ore Zone

Underlying aquitard

Underlying sand

Underlying sand

Characterization, Flow Behavior, Monitorin

Characterization, Flow Behavior, Monitorin

Excursion Capture, Restoration Excursion Capture, Restoration
Resources Resources

• William Walton, “Groundwater Pumping Tes

Design and Analysis”

• Johnson Controls, “Groundwater and Wells”• Michael Kasenow, “ Aquifer Test Data: Analy

Evaluation”
06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

Industry Perspectives on the Industry Perspectives on the 

Application of 40 CFR Part 61, Sub

Application of 40 CFR Part 61, Sub

W to Uranium Recovery Faciliti

W to Uranium Recovery Facilit

Prepared for the 2009 NMA/NRC Conference Prepared for the 2009 NMA/NRC Conference

Prepared by Thompson & Simmons, PL

Prepared by Thompson & Simmons, PL

Anthony J. Thompson, Esq. (Presen

Anthony J. Thompson, Esq. (Presen

Christopher S. Pugsley, E

Christopher S. Pugsley, E
06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

 At the 2008 Nuclear Regulatory Commissio

At the 2008 Nuclear Regulatory Commissio

(NRC)/National Mining Association (NM

(NRC)/National Mining Association (NM

Conference, the Environmental Protection 

Conference, the Environmental Protection 

(EPA) Announced a New Scope for 40 CFR 

(EPA) Announced a New Scope for 40 CFR 

61, Subpart W 61, Subpart W’s Application to Uranium Re

s Application to Uranium Re

Facilities Facilities:

 Subpart W Applies to Subpart W Applies to:

 Uranium Mill Tailings Impoundments; Uranium Mill Tailings Impoundments; Evaporation Ponds; Evaporation Ponds; Other Non Other Non-Tailings Impoundments (e.g., Settling Po

Tailings Impoundments (e.g., Settling Po
06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

 The Domestic Uranium Recovery Industry Was Su

The Domestic Uranium Recovery Industry Was Su

and Dismayed by This Pronouncement and Dismayed by This Pronouncement:

 Existing Conventional Mills Have Existing Conventional Mills Have Only Reported Radon 

Only Reported Radon 

From Uranium Mill Tailings Impoundments From Uranium Mill Tailings Impoundments:

 EPA Method 115 Assumes Water Covered Sources in Such EPA Method 115 Assumes Water Covered Sources in Such 

Impoundments to Be a Zero Source Term

 In Situ Leach (ISL) Facilities In Situ Leach (ISL) Facilities Do Not Have Uranium Mi

Do Not Have Uranium Mi

Impoundments and Have No Impoundments and Have Not Reported in the Past t Reported in the Past
06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

 NMA Responded to This Pronouncement o

NMA Responded to This Pronouncement 

Behalf of Industry Behalf of Industry:

 Met with NRC to Discuss Its Position on This 

Met with NRC to Discuss Its Position on This 

 Met with EPA Headquarters Task Force on Th

Met with EPA Headquarters Task Force on Th

 Prepared a Detailed Analysis of the Prepared a Detailed Analysis of the:

 Subpart W Administrative Rulemaking Record; and t

Subpart W Administrative Rulemaking Record; and t

 Current Status of Subpart W’s Application to Uranium 

s Application to Uranium 

Facilities Facilities
06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

 EPA Responded to NMA By Stating EPA Responded to NMA By Stating:

 EPA is Evaluating the Scope of Subpart W w

EPA is Evaluating the Scope of Subpart W w

Potential Rulemaking in Mind; Potential Rulemaking in Mind;

 EPA Has Sent Letters to Numerous Uranium EPA Has Sent Letters to Numerous Uraniu

Recovery Facility Operators (Both Conventi

Recovery Facility Operators (Both Conventi

ISL):

 Demands for Information on Site Operations Demands for Information on Site Operations Demands for Testing on Existing Site Facilities Demands for Testing on Existing Site Facilities
06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

CLEAN AIR ACT: STATUTO

CLEAN AIR ACT: STATUTO

AND REGULATORY SUMM

AND REGULATORY SUMM

 Congress Enacted the Clean Air Act of 1977 (CAA) in Part to 

Congress Enacted the Clean Air Act of 1977 (CAA) in Part to 

Radionuclides Radionuclides as Potentially Hazardous Air Pollutants and T

as Potentially Hazardous Air Pollutants and T

EPA Develop National Emissions Standards for Hazardous 

EPA Develop National Emissions Standards for Hazardous 

Pollutants ( Pollutants (NESHAPs NESHAPs);

 March 7, 1989: EPA Proposes Standa March 7, 1989: EPA Proposes Standards at 40 CFR Part 61 as 

rds at 40 CFR Part 61 as 

 Subpart T: Subpart T: Inactive Inactive Uranium Mill Tailings Piles/Impoundme

Uranium Mill Tailings Piles/Impoundme

 Subpart W: Subpart W: Active Uranium Mill Tailings Piles/Impoundmen

Uranium Mill Tailings Piles/Impoundmen

 Subpart B: Underground Uranium Mines; Subpart B: Underground Uranium Mines; Others
06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

CLEAN AIR ACT: STATUTO

CLEAN AIR ACT: STATUTO

AND REGULATORY SUMM

AND REGULATORY SUMM

 December 15, 1989: EPA Promulgates Final Rules 

December 15, 1989: EPA Promulgates Final Rules 

Subparts T, W, and B Subparts T, W, and B:

 All Three Subparts Must Be Cons All Three Subparts Must Be Considered When Evaluatin

idered When Evaluatin

Scope of Subpart W:

 All Three Were Proposed/Promulgated at the Same Time; All Three Were Proposed/Promulgated at the Same Time; All Three Address Radon Emissions for Which EPA All Three Address Radon Emissions for Which EPA’s Rad

s Rad

Risk Factor Assumptions Would Be Equally Applicable; Risk Factor Assumptions Would Be Equally Applicable;

 Subpart T was Eventually Rescinde Subpart T was Eventually Rescinded After Extensive Nego

d After Extensive Nego

Addressing Numerous Mill Tailin Addressing Numerous Mill Tailings and Related Process I

gs and Related Process I

 EPA Conclusions and Statements in Subparts T and B are 

EPA Conclusions and Statements in Subparts T and B are 

Their Conclusions Relate Directly to Subpart W as Finally Their Conclusions Relate Directly to Subpart W as Finally Promulgated Promulgated
06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

CLEAN AIR ACT: STATUTO

CLEAN AIR ACT: STATUTO

AND REGULATORY SUMM

AND REGULATORY SUMM

 The Rescission of Subpart T Plays a Critical Role The Rescission of Subpart T Plays a Critical Role:

 Settlement Negotiations Explicitly Settlement Negotiations Explicitly Raised the Evaporation Pon

 Raised the Evaporation Pon

Tailings Impoundment Issue (Proposed Rule) Tailings Impoundment Issue (Proposed Rule):

 “The regulations contemplated by this notice seek to control the The regulations contemplated by this notice seek to control the e

e

radon-222 by requiring the installation 222 by requiring the installation of an earthen cover over th

of an earthen cover over th

piles as expeditiously as practicable considering technological piles as expeditiously as practicable considering technological fea

fea

However, there are other aspects However, there are other aspects to the UMTRCA regulatory sche

to the UMTRCA regulatory sche

the long the long-term maintenance of the piles (once controlled) against e

term maintenance of the piles (once controlled) against e

the reclamation and maintenance of groundwater the reclamation and maintenance of groundwater....These actions 

These actions 

of evaporation ponds that in some instances of evaporation ponds that in some instances....have been placed d

.have been placed d

the disposal site the disposal site.”;

 “EPA does not intend that the ex EPA does not intend that the expeditious radon cover requireme

peditious radon cover requireme

the areas where evaporat the areas where evaporation ponds are located, ion ponds are located, even if on the pile 

even if on the pile 

extent that such evaporation pond extent that such evaporation pond is deemed by the implementing is deemed by the implementing 

(NRC or an affected Agreement St (NRC or an affected Agreement State) to be an appropriate aspect ate) to be an appropriate aspect remedial program for the particular site involved. remedial program for the particular site involved.”
06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

CLEAN AIR ACT: STATUTO

CLEAN AIR ACT: STATUTO

AND REGULATORY SUMM

AND REGULATORY SUMM

 The Rescission of Subpart T Play The Rescission of Subpart T Plays a Critical Role (CONTIN

s a Critical Role (CONTIN

 Settlement Negotiations Explicitly Settlement Negotiations Explicitly Raised the Evaporation Pon

 Raised the Evaporation Pon

Tailings Impoundment Issue (Proposed Rule) Tailings Impoundment Issue (Proposed Rule):

 “the ponds themselves serve as an effective radon barrier the ponds themselves serve as an effective radon barrier, thus thi

, thus thi

bolstered by the absence of any bolstered by the absence of any evidence that there is a signifi evidence that there is a significant 

can

risk presented by the radon emi risk presented by the radon emissions from these evaporation pon ssions from these evaporation ponperiod they are employed as part of the overall remediation of t period they are employed as part of the overall remediation of the 

he 

 “EPA believes the overall public health interest in comprehensive EPA believes the overall public health interest in comprehensivel

the problems associated with each the problems associated with each site is best served by requiri site is best served by requiring 

ng 

cover be expeditiously installed in a manner that does not requi cover be expeditiously installed in a manner that does not require 

re 

of this other aspect of remediation of this other aspect of remediation....Rather, EPA believes that pr

Rather, EPA believes that pr

other parts of the pile are covered with the earthen cover, comp other parts of the pile are covered with the earthen cover, complia

lia

20 pCi/m2 standard will result 20 pCi/m2 standard will result....”
06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

CLEAN AIR ACT: STATUTO

CLEAN AIR ACT: STATUTO

AND REGULATORY SUMMA

AND REGULATORY SUMMA

 EPA Amendments in 1993 Regarding Agree

EPA Amendments in 1993 Regarding Agre

States and NRC States and NRC-Licensed Uranium Mill Ta

Licensed Uranium Mill Ta

in the Response to Comments in the Response to Comments:

 “EPA reiterates that the Agency does not intend the 

EPA reiterates that the Agency does not intend the 

radon cover requirement to extend to areas where eva

radon cover requirement to extend to areas where ev

ponds are located ponds are located, even if on the pile itself, to the ext

even if on the pile itself, to the ext

such evaporation pond is deemed by the implementi

such evaporation pond is deemed by the implementi

agency...to be an appropriate aspect of the overall re

to be an appropriate aspect of the overall re

program for the particular site. program for the particular site.”;

 The same obviously holds true for licensed non The same obviously holds true for licensed non-tailin

tailin

ponds/impoundments necessary for active recovery o

ponds/impoundments necessary for active recovery 
06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

CLEAN AIR ACT: STATUTO

CLEAN AIR ACT: STATUTO

AND REGULATORY SUMM

AND REGULATORY SUMM

 EPA’s Response to Comments and Method 115 Gu

s Response to Comments and Method 115 Gu

Provides Additional Support Provides Additional Support:

 Response to Comments Response to Comments: “Recent technical assessments of rad

Recent technical assessments of rad

rates from tailings indicate that rates from tailings indicate that radon emissions from tailings radon emissions from tailings 

less than one meter of water, or less than one meter of water, or merely saturated with water, ar merely saturated with water, ar

of emissions from dry tailings. Tailings covered with more tha

of emissions from dry tailings. Tailings covered with more tha

of water are estimated to have a zero emissions rate of water are estimated to have a zero emissions rate. The Agen

. The Agen

this calculated difference between 0% and 2% is negligible this calculated difference between 0% and 2% is negligible. Th

Th

used an emission rate of zero used an emission rate of zero for all tailings covered with wate for all tailings covered with water 

r 

with water in estimating radon emissions. with water in estimating radon emissions.”;

 Method 115 Method 115: “[R]adon flux measurements shall be made with

flux measurements shall be made with

region on the pile, region on the pile, except for those areas covered with water except for those areas covered with water.” 

covered area covered area--no measurements required as no measurements required as radon flux assume

radon flux assume

zero.”
06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

CLEAN AIR ACT: CONCLUSI

CLEAN AIR ACT: CONCLUS

 The Administrative Rulemaking Record States Unequivocal

The Administrative Rulemaking Record States Unequivocal

Subparts T and W Proceedings and in Method 115 That a W

Subparts T and W Proceedings and in Method 115 That a W

Covered Mill Tailings Impoundment, Much Less a Water Covered Mill Tailings Impoundment, Much Less a Water-C

C

Non-Tailings Impoundment, is a Tailings Impoundment, is a “Zero Radon Flux Source 

Zero Radon Flux Source 

 Evaporation and Other Non Evaporation and Other Non-Tailings Ponds Contain Water Du

Tailings Ponds Contain Water Du

Operations; Operations;

 Lined Ponds Must Be Disposed of In Lined Ponds Must Be Disposed of In Place if They Do Not Co

Place if They Do Not Co

Byproduct Material Unless on Top Byproduct Material Unless on Top of a Tailings Pile/Impound

of a Tailings Pile/Impound

They Must Be Removed and Placed They Must Be Removed and Placed in a Tailings Pile/Impoun

in a Tailings Pile/Impoun

When No Longer Active; When No Longer Active;

 Anything that is Not Active, Incl Anything that is Not Active, Including Tailings Piles, are Not 

uding Tailings Piles, are Not 

Subpart W
06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

CLEAN AIR ACT: CONCLUSI

CLEAN AIR ACT: CONCLUS

 With Respect to Method 115 Testing Procedures and Guidan

With Respect to Method 115 Testing Procedures and Guidan

 Both Subpart T and W Rulemakings Both Subpart T and W Rulemakings Expressly State that the R

Expressly State that the R

Do Not Apply to Evaporation Ponds Do Not Apply to Evaporation Ponds--Even Those on Top of T

Even Those on Top of T

Piles/Impoundments; Piles/Impoundments;

 No Regulations for ISL As Such Facilities Are Never Mentio

No Regulations for ISL As Such Facilities Are Never Mentio

Subpart W or Its Administrative Rulemaking Record; Subpart W or Its Administrative Rulemaking Record;

 Only in Subpart B Rulemaking for Underground Uranium M

Only in Subpart B Rulemaking for Underground Uranium M

ISLs Mentioned Mentioned:

 EPA States Not Enough Radon Released to Require Regulatio

EPA States Not Enough Radon Released to Require Regulatio
06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

INDUSTRY CONCERNS

INDUSTRY CONCERNS

OVERSIGHT OVERSIGHT

 Another Layer of Regulatory Oversigh

Another Layer of Regulatory Oversigh

Result in Cost Increases and Inefficie

Result in Cost Increases and Inefficie

Facility Processes Facility Processes:

 Potential EPA Requirements for Concurrent Potential EPA Requirements for Concurren

Approval of Construction of New Evaporatio

Approval of Construction of New Evaporati

Other Non Other Non-Tailings Impoundments; Tailings Impoundments;

 Potential Enforcement Action by EPA regar

Potential Enforcement Action by EPA regar

Changes in Aspects of Ponds (i.e., Water Le

Changes in Aspects of Ponds (i.e., Water Le
06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

INDUSTRY CONCERNS

INDUSTRY CONCERNS

STANDARDS STANDARDS

 EPA May Re EPA May Re-Evaluate the 20 pCi/m2 Evaluate the 20 pCi/m2-sec 

Standard Standard:

 All Title I Sites to Be Closed Pursuant to This S

All Title I Sites to Be Closed Pursuant to This S

 All Title II Uranium Mill Tailings Facilities Clo

All Title II Uranium Mill Tailings Facilities Clo

Licenses Terminated Pursuant to This Standar

Licenses Terminated Pursuant to This Standar

 Re-Evaluation of This Standard Could Result in Evaluation of This Standard Could Result in 

Hundreds of Millions of Dollars in Changes to 

Hundreds of Millions of Dollars in Changes to 

Closed Sites That Have Been Transferred to th

Closed Sites That Have Been Transferred to th

Department of Energy (DOE) as Perpetual Cus

Department of Energy (DOE) as Perpetual Cu
06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

INDUSTRY CONCERNS

INDUSTRY CONCERNS

JURISDICTION JURISDICTION

 EPA’s NESHAPs NESHAPs are “Outside the Outside the Fenceline Fenceline” Sta

Sta

 Occupational Exposures are not Within EPA Occupational Exposures are not Within EPA’s Jurisdicti

s Jurisdicti

 NRC Fence NRC Fence-Line Limits for Members of the Public of 10

Line Limits for Members of the Public of 10

Mrem/Year Provide a Safe and Effective Public Dose Sta

/Year Provide a Safe and Effective Public Dose St

 Conventional Uranium Mills Satisfying the 20 pCi/m2 Conventional Uranium Mills Satisfying the 20 pCi/m2-sec 

sec 

Are Adequately protective of Publ Are Adequately protective of Public Health and Safety and 

ic Health and Safety and 

Less than 100 Less than 100 Mrem/Year to Nearest Resident; /Year to Nearest Resident;

 ISL Facilities Produce Only ISL Facilities Produce Only a Tiny Fraction of the 100 a Tiny Fraction of the 100 Mre

Dose to Members of the Public Dose to Members of the Public “At the Fence At the Fence-Line”
06/17/2009 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS

 EPA’s Apparent Assumptions that s Apparent Assumptions that Subpart W Applies to Non Subpart W Applies to Non-Taili

Taili

Ponds/Impoundments at Conv Ponds/Impoundments at Conventional and ISL Facilities entional and ISL Facilities:

 Is in Direct Conflict with the Rulemaking Record Is in Direct Conflict with the Rulemaking Record:

 Subparts T and W Do Not Subparts T and W Do Not Apply to Evaporation Apply to Evaporation Ponds, Even Those o Ponds, Even Those on Ta

n Ta

Piles/Impoundments; Piles/Impoundments;

 Even Water Even Water-Covered Tailings Are a Zero Covered Tailings Are a Zero Radon Flux Source Term; Radon Flux Source Term; ISL Sites Are Never Mentio ISL Sites Are Never Mentioned Except in Subpart B

 Is Faulty if Based on Concept Th Is Faulty if Based on Concept That Wastewater at Uranium Recover at Wastewater at Uranium Recovery F

y F

11e.(2) Byproduct Material 11e.(2) Byproduct Material:

 The Water Evaporates and Then Liner is Disposed of as 11e.(2) By The Water Evaporates and Then Liner is Disposed of as 11e.(2) Byproduct 

product 

 Materials Other Than Wastewater Materials Other Than Wastewater and Tailings are 11e.(2) Byprodu and Tailings are 11e.(2) Byproduct Mate

ct Mate

 Re-Evaluating the 20 pCi/m2 Evaluating the 20 pCi/m2-sec Standard Per Public Lawsuit is sec Standard Per Public Lawsuit is 

Understandable But Changing the St Understandable But Changing the Standard Could Only Be Based 

andard Could Only Be Based 

Speculation and Not on Id Speculation and Not on Identified Adverse Impacts entified Adverse Impacts